The problem with "subscription models" isn't "subscription models" per se, it's greed.<p>People aren't showing aversion to "subscription vs non-subscription models", they're showing an aversion to greed, and businesses not treating them as a valued customer, but as a resource to be milked until either the resource dries out or the business goes bust.<p>In the original definition it used to be that a "subscription model" meant a win-win situation for both the user and the business: the business gets some sort of pledge that the customer will continue purchasing the recurring product or service in question because they are a loyal customer, in exchange for extra benefits (typically a discount, or some sort of extra goodies or support).<p>Now we have the reverse situation: greedy companies treat subscription as their "main" business plan, hoping to milk as much money as ephemerally possible without necessarily valuing their loyal customers, offerring either no non-subscription alternative, or a highly crippled or ridiculous alternative to coerce you into subscribing just to get the "base" product "at least once".<p>It's become the software equivalent of hardware companies coming up with "bullshit consumables" that serve no real purpose in a device except forcing users to keep paying after a purchase (this is super common in biomed devices!).<p>People know a greedy model / bullshit service when they see one. As a result, they put off using it as much as they can, and when they finally succumb with a heavy heart and subscribe because they need the "base" product that should have been available without a subscription, they retaliate in other ways that harm the business (e.g. single star reviews, password sharing networks, etc).